Forum:Canon Policy
So, I've been noticing some things. Why is it alright to disregard some aspects of established canon while honoring others? I thought newly established canon overruled previously established canon. Case in point: The Fall of Reach, it said that there were over three million people on Harvest when it was glassed. Contact Harvest comes along, changes the number to three hundred thousand. The canon was changed from 3,000,000 to 300,000, with 300,000 taking precedence. However, when TFoR states that there were three divisions of ODSTs, with the 105th ODST Division being one of them (of course, the quote this is taken from is dubious at best; it says that the SPARTANs did more work than any three divisions of ODSTs ever could, not that there were three divisions of ODSTs). The Encyclopedia (Uncyclopedia, as I like to call it) says that the 105th is a Marine Expeditionary Unit. A traditional MEU numbers about 3,000 personnel, including those in support positions. However, some still hold the word of TFoR over the Encyclopedia, despite the fact that newly established canon overrules canon established previously. The new canon policy also includes a policy on realism. But, as some of you may have noticed, some articles completely overstep the bounds of realism. One such article breaks knowledge of basic biology; the character's spine was torn out, all of their blood wiped out, and their left arm replaced with a particle accelerator. Now, no one can survive with their spine gone, much less having their normal red blood cells replaced by so-called "black" blood cells; said individual would run the risk of rejection, leading to their body attacking itself. Not only that, but a particle accelerator? Small enough to fit on a man's left arm? Yeah, believe it - the person who wrote the article explains any and all concerns with the phrase: "tier zero technology". For those of you who don't know, tier zero was the technology scale of the Precursors, a race that know one really knows to have even existed. They could travel through galaxies, and create life from virtually *nothing*. It's become the new race card of canon. So, what I ask is this: why are we still stressing that articles be "canon friendly", when our own veteran users and administrators pick and choose from canon? Why are we still marking the noobie's articles NCF when it can all be explained away by "tier zero technology"? Why even have a canon policy when we're going to do nothing but break it anyway, going outside the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology because it can all be simply explained by the use of "tier zero technology"? I say we just do away with the policy, since it's useless. It's pointless, honestly. It's just a way for veteran users and administrators to get rid of noobs who create things they don't like, and don't lie, that's exactly what they use it for. That's all it is. Hell, if we're just going to pick and choose from canon, I'll say that Harvest had 3,000,000 people on it when it was glassed, just because I like Nylund. Hell, I'll say that the UNSC didn't discover Brutes until 2552 during FIRST STRIKE, because I like Nylund's novels better than Staten's, Bucknell's, and Deitz's. Hell, let's just say that SPARTAN-117 was a girl with a really deep voice, because that's the way I'' want it to be, because ''I don't like the published canon. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 00:00, April 20, 2010 (UTC) The main thing, however, is that many users have restricted their non collaborative fanon into personal universes, which are effectively outside of the Halo Fanon mainspace: so long as they don't ignore canon to the point of not being Halo anymore, they remain fine. The Canon Friendliness rule only extends to articles within the HF mainspace; which is to say, articles that aren't namespaced or separated into their own user created universe. Now, I am in no way saying that people who create their own "User Universes" can completely ignore canon; i.e. blatantly obvious things, such as John-117's gender, cannot be ignored, but alternate universes can allow users to somewhat bend canon. My own universe, for example, doesn't strictly adhere to canon; due to the UNSC's lack of military practicality in many areas, my universe improves on it. Now, onto the topic of veterans and administrators utilizing the NCF tag only on the articles of new users; now, this may be true to an extent, but keep in mind that the NCF tag is an umbrella term covering Plagiarism, Unrealism, and God Modding. Seeing as most taggings these days are on matters of practicality rather than true canon friendliness, the argument isn't completely true. If an administrator or veteran's article is, in fact, unrealistic, however, any user is encouraged to tag it, despite pressure to the contrary. On the topic of Tier 0/Tier 1 technology, I abhor the use of it as en excuse to have completely implausible technologies. Besides the fact that there wouldn't be so many Tier 1 or Tier 0 races in the universes either way (I've seen some 6 or 7 such factions), the term "Tier 0" or "Tier 1" is now largely becoming an excuse for people to have crazy things that don't make sense whatsoever. What I propose is either a complete removel of "Tier 0" as a plausible excuse, or a limitation to what it entails. :Perhaps an abolishment of anything categorised as Tier 0/Zero seeing that it is the main cause of all these exploits and also because it can break the laws of nature (simply by saying "Tier Zero")? The only recognised (and established) species known to be one are the Precursors and no one can expand the species as it has been left intentionally ambiguous by Bungie. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 00:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC) I agree with both Sgt.johnson and SpartanROZH. I feel that this it is unfair that articles posted by newer members, relating to Special Warfare of Post-War situations are constantly battered. Some veteran users like to claim "oh that can't happened humanity is destroyed" when the very articles they write take place mere decades after the Human-Covenant War, while skipping nearly all periods of reconstructions and starting new massive wars. For some reason, some users also seem think cross overs are stupid (to be quite honest, I've never cared for them my self) when half the factions on here are bascially copied off of other forms of media. What happened to HALO fanon? I thought this site was about writing about realistic events relating to the Halo Universe. I geuss not. Finally, I'd like to thank you for bringing up this subject, as I never did for fear I would be critized and insulted. --blah 00:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC) }} }} Bungie's ranking system :Alright, here's Bungie's ranking system on canon: "Hey Folks, Bry has hit the nail on the head: : Halo 'canon' can quite easily be viewed in a similar way as the kind of canon : system in place with Star Wars. : A certain hierarchy of priority. : In other words, different levels of canon where the higher levels will : override the lower ones whenever there is a contradiction. Everything that Bungie has ever approved is canonical. But even then, certain things trump others. In order of canonical influence: - The games rank first - Published materials (books, comics, soundtrack liner notes etc.) rank second - Marketing and PR materials third And there's one codicil: the more recent items trump the older ones. So, for example, if some aspect of Halo 3's fiction contradicted Halo 2's, Halo 3's would be the gold standard. Bungie doesn't like to retcon (i.e., deliberately change previously established facts), but sometimes it's necessary. Take for example the issue of the number of human worlds. The truth about the "800+" number? That was made up by a non-Bungie employee and never approved by us before the Halo: CE promotional website went live. As for some of the other issues raised, chiefly Jenkins' age and UNSC foot-dragging on fielding the BR55? I will only say that some marines have spent a very long time in cryo-sleep and that putting an entirely new weapon into service during a war -- especially a war that spans multiple star systems -- is no small order. That being said, I'm constantly impressed by how close attention you all pay to the details. Don't ever stop keeping us honest! And we'll do our best to keep you reliably entertained :-) - Joseph" Source: http://forums.bungie.org/halo/archive28.pl?read=847640 -- So, where does that leave us now? -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 00:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC) "The main thing, however, is that many users have restricted their non collaborative fanon into personal universes, which are effectively outside of the Halo Fanon mainspace: so long as they don't ignore canon to the point of not being Halo anymore, they remain fine. The Canon Friendliness rule only extends to articles within the HF mainspace; which is to say, articles that aren't namespaced or separated into their own user created universe. Now, I am in no way saying that people who create their own "User Universes" can completely ignore canon; i.e. blatantly obvious things, such as John-117's gender, cannot be ignored, but alternate universes can allow users to somewhat bend canon. My own universe, for example, doesn't strictly adhere to canon; due to the UNSC's lack of military practicality in many areas, my universe improves on it. Now, onto the topic of veterans and administrators utilizing the NCF tag only on the articles of new users; now, this may be true to an extent, but keep in mind that the NCF tag is an umbrella term covering Plagiarism, Unrealism, and God Modding. Seeing as most taggings these days are on matters of practicality rather than true canon friendliness, the argument isn't completely true. If an administrator or veteran's article is, in fact, unrealistic, however, any user is encouraged to tag it, despite pressure to the contrary. On the topic of Tier 0/Tier 1 technology, I abhor the use of it as en excuse to have completely implausible technologies. Besides the fact that there wouldn't be so many Tier 1 or Tier 0 races in the universes either way (I've seen some 6 or 7 such factions), the term "Tier 0" or "Tier 1" is now largely becoming an excuse for people to have crazy things that don't make sense whatsoever. What I propose is either a complete removel of "Tier 0" as a plausible excuse, or a limitation to what it entails" I stand by what I said earlier. :It's quite simple actually. 343 Industries would be under Bungie :Tl;dr: Bungie and all of its released/published assets (such as the Halo Trilogy and the main novels TF, FS, GoO, CH, CP) are still superior above others; media not controlled by Bungie but by 343 Industries (such as the Halo Wars, Halo Encyclopaedia and Halo Evolutions) are second in power. Third parties is the last canon. :If all fails, apply common sense/logic test.Sketchist 01:47, April 20, 2010 (UTC) ::And how did you come to this conclusion? Is this what Bungie has said, or is this your own method of ranking canon? -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 01:53, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :::My own method after applying common sense and scouring Wookiepedia's canon policy.Sketchist 01:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :Sure seems like it, eh? Only thing is whether or not the Halo: Encyclopedia can overrule a book that came before it... or anything for that matter. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 03:03, April 20, 2010 (UTC) There are around seven factions that are Tier 0 here? Huh... I only knew of the Precursors and my Vitika, which of course I intend for something more intricate than simply making them more powerful than anything the galaxy(ies) has ever seen. This made true by the fact I have them at war with the flood, and slowly but surely are losing. I plan to kill the Vitika. But first I must build the background for the other races in the galaxy. Oh yeah, and I had also made the Ensiyng, who are/were Tier 0 but were driven out of galaxy and perhaps to extinction by the Vitika. So either way, both Tier 0 factions i have created will not survive my tales... stories... ideas... things... -- Y'know, I never was honestly saying drop the policy, I was saying that there's a pretty huge issue in the policy. Besides, it wouldn't be too bad, we'd have less stuff to worry over. And the thing is, some of our admins do take advantage of their rights due to a "personal distaste"; I've seen it happen many times before. Some users don't know how to defend themselves, and when they do, they show up with a piece of BS evidence, and/or delete the page. If they don't, then the tag stays on the page for all eternity. Anyways, I talked to 091 about this last night; the only thing that will settle this will probably be a few letters to Bungie's staff. I think he's going to draft it and send it, and we'll see from there. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 12:42, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :@Ascension: Is that the draft you mentioned to replace Halopedia's current Canon Policy? :@Others: Perhaps this might shed some light on the issue? A debate on how canon works when Halo Wars was released and the battle of deductive reasoning! ::Regarding new canon and old canon: New canon will override old canon (like Law!). The reasoning behind this is that old information will most certainly be outdated and incompatible as society progresses and civilisation develops and evolve. Such examples are the first sightings of the Sangheili where in FoR shows 2552 whereas Cole Protocol shows something as early as 2535. By applying the "logic test", it can be argued this is reasonably plausible. However, new canon does not always override old canon; if new canon presents a material that is so controversial and defies the basic laws of nature (i.e. physics) -- hence, going beyond what is reasonably plausible as supported by old canon --, they would have to undergo the "logic test". Such example is the Magnetic Accelerator Cannon power (firepower?) where new canon shows the power (firepower?) is measured in teratons whereas old canon shows the power (firepower?) is in gigatons instead.verification? Similarly, if new canon present a material that is unreasonably plausible (but obeying the laws of nature), it would have to undergo the "logic test" where one would have to figure out what the most reasonable explanation is. The only question that should be asked here is who should determine what is reasonably plausible? With supported research and evidence, anyone can determine what is reasonably plausible and the members of the Administration Team are merely advisers (like judges who are reserve their comment at the end of a trial and are depended on research of others). ::Regarding hierarchy of superior canon: The Halo Trilogy (HCE, H2 and H3) is of the highest canon of all other media. H3R and H;R are second to the Halo Trilogy as they merely expand the canon Halo Universe as told by Bungie, mainly because they are directly from Bungie themselves. The secondary canon would be the Halo novels (Fall of Reach till Contact Harvest) as the authors were contracted by Bungie to expand the canon Halo Universe. Here, the "new canon overrides old canon, unless contradicts laws of nature" rule as explained above applies. Halo Wars and all other future Halo games as well as the literatures published by 343 Industries will be considered as tertiary canon as they are under 343 Industries (indirectly from Bungie) and that they merely expand redefines the canon Halo Universe. Third parties are of inferior canon, followed by Halopedia canon. :P ::One of the heated discussion is the amount of surviving SPARTAN-IIs prior to the Battle of Reach. Since newer materials have contradicted FoR's, it appears that there is no definite canon and is left ambiguous unintentionally by Bungie and exploited by 343 Industries. Ambiguities such as this are still canon but will also be categorised as a loophole until a definite canon is given. ::As a final note, I would also like to point out that the Halo Novels merely redefines canon by introducing new information atop of old canon. The same applies to thje Halo Encyclopaedia which also redefines canon by introducing canon that has not been covered by Bungie (such as the history of the CMA/CAA) and as such will remain canon. Canon that overrides the old canon will have to undergo the Logic Test as explained in the previous points above. Due to the astounding nature of the Encyclopaedia for contradicting itself countless time, simply apply the "Logic Test". ::So, where does this puts us? ::In a nutshell; ::#New canon always override old canon unless it contradicts the laws of nature or the "logic test". If the new canon is unreasonably plausible, old canon would retain its position as a superior material. Such instance where new canon is unreasonably plausible is the attack ranges of weapons presented by Halo Encyclopaedia which follows the gameplay elements from the Halo games and old canon remains superior (In Halo Encyclopaedia, it is said that the MA5B had massive inaccuracy problem but as we all know, it's for the games. The novels proved that the MA5B are very effective and had decent accuracy like the MA5C). ::#Ambiguity is common in the Halo Universe and is categorised as "loopholes". Unless definite canon is given, this loophole can be exploited. Such instance is the number of surviving SPARTAN-IIs. *stares at Jared-091* ::#Bungie products are of higher canon than all other products. Any retroactive continuity introduced by Bungie will immediately take into effect. Such instance is the first sighting of the Sangheili where it was said to be in 2552 (FoR) but changed to 2535 (CP). Any retroactive continuity introduced by others should be taken into consideration. ::#Review the product and dissect every detail. Categorise those details and then determine their canonicity. Question this: Are they in conflict with another product? ::Toodles! - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :I concur with Tony. This hierarchy makes the most sense, despite my personal feelings that are in line with Tony's (Novels > Games). 343 Stuff is canon, it just has to make sense. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 14:13, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe I'm weird; I like the books that were not written by Nylund more than the ones that were (The only one by Nylund that I actually like is Ghosts of Onyx). It's not necessarially the newbies either, it's always been that if a newer source says something, the older source goes into the background on that particular subject (ie, Brute armor in Halo 2). The newly expanded canon makes sense in some ways, but in others it makes *no* sense at all; even the old canon did that. -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson 14:49, April 20, 2010 (UTC) That is why veteran (old?) Halo lore keepers step in and explain how it actually works. It is not as simple as it seems. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 15:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC)